State v. Hiles
1 CA-CR 16-0588
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Appellant Bart Hiles was tried and convicted of armed robbery (A.R.S. § 13-1904) after a clerk identified him from the store surveillance and he was later found with a backpack containing a BB gun, vodka, and a hat matching the video; jury convicted on Count I; pleaded to Count II later.
- The State alleged four prior felony convictions (1997, 1997, 1998, 2012) and the court found two historical priors, sentencing Hiles as a category three repetitive offender to 15.75 years.
- Trial evidence included store surveillance, clerk identification (photo lineup and in-court ID), officers’ observation/arrest shortly after the robbery, and items recovered from Hiles’s backpack.
- Hiles raised multiple post-trial complaints: ineffective assistance for advising him not to testify and failing to introduce a receipt, jury contamination (juror allegedly saw him handcuffed), alleged perjury by the clerk, prejudicial display of tattoos, absence of fingerprint/DNA evidence, jury requests about video during deliberations, and challenges to prior-conviction proof for sentencing enhancement.
- The court excused the questioned juror after she stated she had not seen handcuffs or discussed the matter; it denied showing the courtroom video during deliberations and relied on extrinsic evidence (pen pack, minute entries, DOC number, and a fingerprint match for the 2012 prior) to prove priors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Hiles: counsel was inadequate, prevented him testifying and failed to admit a receipt | State: claim must be pursued in Rule 32; not decided on direct appeal | Court: Declined to decide on direct appeal; directed claim to Rule 32 procedure |
| Jury contamination (juror saw handcuffs) | Hiles: juror seeing him handcuffed contaminated entire panel and warranted mistrial | State: juror denied seeing handcuffs or discussing it; trial court excused juror; presumption jurors follow instructions | Court: No prejudice shown; no fundamental error; trial court acted appropriately |
| Alleged perjury by store clerk | Hiles: clerk selected different photo initially and altered testimony to fit prosecutor, amounting to perjury | State: inconsistencies do not equal perjury; credibility is for the jury | Court: Not perjury; inconsistencies insufficient to show demonstrably false material sworn statement; no reversible error |
| Displaying tattoos / jury viewing video | Hiles: forced display of tattoos suggested prison tattoos and prejudiced jury; jurors later asked to see courtroom video of tattoos | State: tattoos were probative of identity based on surveillance; court reasonably denied replaying limited courtroom video | Court: Tattoo display admissible for identity; denial to replay video during deliberations proper; no prejudice |
| Fingerprint/DNA absence | Hiles: lack of fingerprints/DNA collection prejudiced defense | State: such evidence is often unavailable in public settings; absence goes to weight not admissibility | Court: No error; absence affects weight, not sufficiency; investigators’ choices appropriate |
| Sentencing priors proof / enhancement | Hiles: three priors unsubstantiated (no fingerprint comparison) and not same nature | State: State proved priors by clear and convincing extrinsic evidence and one prior by fingerprint match; historical priors counted under statute | Court: Sufficient evidence (pen pack, matching names/DOB, DOC number, fingerprint for 2012); classification as category three offender proper; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Robbins v. California, 528 U.S. 259 (procedural standard for appellate counsel’s Anders-type brief)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedures when appellate counsel deems appeal frivolous)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (appellate review obligations)
- State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (requirement to review record for reversible error)
- State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1 (ineffective assistance claims must be brought via Rule 32)
- State v. Galioto, 126 Ariz. 188 (prejudice, not mere observation, is the focus where jurors see restraints)
- State v. Johnson, 147 Ariz. 395 (prejudice standard for juror exposure to defendant in restraints)
- State v. Cons, 208 Ariz. 409 (State must prove historical priors by clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (two-part proof: identity of defendant and prior conviction)
- State v. LeBlanc, 186 Ariz. 437 (presumption jurors follow instructions)